nanu nirupādhi-premāspadasya prītau parikaratvābhimāna upādhiḥ syāt | tato jñānātmikāṁ sāmānyāṁ ca prītim apekṣya tad-abhimāni-prītayo gauṇya eva syuḥ | kiṁ ca mamatāyāḥ prīti-hetutve jñāte ca yasyātmanaḥ sambandhāt prītir bhavet tasminn eva tad-ādhikyaṁ syāt | naivaṁ | śrī-bhagavato yena svabhāvenaivānubhūtenābhimāna-viśeṣaṁ vināpi teṣāṁ prītir udayate tenāpi parikarāṇām udayate | tathā nija-svabhāva-siddho vā tātkāliko vā yo’bhimāna-viśeṣas tenāpy udayate | samuccaye ko virodhaḥ | pratyutollāsa eva |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 92)
“[An objection is raised:] ’Well, in the case of prīti for an object of upādhi-free prema [i.e., in the case of prīti for Śrī Bhagavān, who is the object of prema that is free from upādhis, that is, adjuncts, meaning, conditions], the identity (abhimāna) of being a parikara [i.e., an associate of Bhagavān] shall [itself] be an upādhi. Thus, the prītis of bearers of identity (abhimāna) in relation to him [i.e., the identity of being a parikara of Bhagavān] shall definitively be secondary [i.e., inferior] in comparison to jñāna-constituted and generic prīti [i.e., to jñānātmikā-prīti and sāmānya-prīti]. Moreover, when my-ness’s (mamatā’s) being the cause of prīti is also understood [i.e., when my-ness in relation to Bhagavān is considered the cause of prīti for Bhagavān], [then] an exceedance of prīti shall occur specifically for the self (ātmā) on the basis of a relation with which prīti [for Bhagavān] shall occur [i.e., if prīti for Bhagavān is caused by my-ness, that is, a sense of something belonging to and being dear to oneself, then prīti for one’s self is the basis of prīti for Bhagavān and will also always be greater than any prīti for Bhagavān that one may have].’
“[In response, it should be said:] No, that is not so. Prīti is manifested in parikaras by the same perceived nature (svabhāva) of Śrī Bhagavān by which prīti is manifest in them [i.e., those possessed of jñānātmikā-prīti and sāmānya-prīti] even without a particular identity (abhimāna) [in relation to Śrī Bhagavān]. It is also similarly manifest by a particular identity (abhimāna), be it one established in one’s own nature (svabhāva) or existent [only] for a particular time [i.e., temporarily present in the mind of a parikara]. What contradiction is there in the aggregation [of these? Meaning, there is no contradiction in saying that prīti is manifested both by perception of Bhagavān’s nature (svabhāva) and manifested by a particular identity (abhimāna) in relation to Bhagavān because these two things are not mutually exclusive but rather mutually complementary and of the same nature since both are manifestations of Śrī Bhagavān’s own svarūpa-śakti]. Rather, there is simply elation (ullāsa) [i.e., the elation of prīti, alt., there is simply increase (ullāsa), meaning, prīti simply manifests to a greater degree when Bhagavān’s nature (svabhāva) is perceived by one who also has a sense of identity (abhimāna) in relation to Bhagavān that is also manifested by Bhagavān’s svarūpa-śakti].”
Read on →
